Radfem Sheila Jeffreys, transphobe, barred from speaking at the RadFem 2012 venue!

[Catherina]

9. I don't think you're missing anything

Not only does the transphobia discredit her because of the angle she's coming from, but her logic on other things is faulty. She also plays very loose with facts and omits, flat out dismisses, anything that contradicts her assertions.

Everything in her books is always frozen in time, without a thought for the larger picture, as if things happened in a rigid, static, sterile vacuum with no deviation from what she set out to *prove* in the first place.


That's all you missed dear Gormy. I want all the time I was forced to spend on Sheila Jeffreys' works back.

You can't even make up some of the stuff she wrote. Here's just an example, as quoted by her friend Bindel

cross-dressing is a result of “men adopting the behaviours of a subordinate group in order to enjoy the sexual satisfaction of masochism”

and this, explained by Bindel here

Appealing to their heterosexual sisters to get rid of men "from your beds and your heads", they started a debate, which reached its height in 1981 with the publication of an infamous booklet, Love Your Enemy? The Debate Between Heterosexual Feminism and Political Lesbianism (LYE). In this, the RFs wrote that, "all feminists can and should be lesbians. Our definition of a political lesbian is a woman-identified woman who does not fuck men. It does not mean compulsory sexual activity with women."

The message of LYE immediately provoked a strong and often negative reaction. While some radical feminists agreed with the group's arguments, many went wild at being told they were "counter-revolutionaries", undermining the fight for women's liberation by sleeping with men. The main author of LYE, Sheila Jeffreys, says that the backlash to the booklet "even among lesbians, was quite shocking. Quite a few were angry with the group for writing it. They felt it exposed them to hostility from outraged heterosexual feminists."

It's no surprise that the booklet was so controversial. "We think serious feminists have no choice but to abandon heterosexuality," it reads. "Only in the system of oppression that is male supremacy does the oppressor actually invade and colonise the interior of the body of the oppressed." It also asserted that penetration "is more than a symbol, its function and effect is the punishment and control of women".

Maybe my words are too harsh but I can't get past the transphobia either and what I saw as deliberately divisive rhetoric that wasn't coming from a position of love for all women or equity for all humans.

It's good to see you btw